Same storm, different boat: The global impact of COVID‐19 on palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a complex and profound impact on the provision of palliative care globally. To support learning from palliative care providers and researchers worldwide, the Education Subcommittee of International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) Palliative Care Special Interest Group developed a webinar with presentations by and discussion with eight international palliative care leaders. METHODS: Presentations were content rich; the speakers used both quantitative (e.g., sharing recent statistical findings) and qualitative (e.g., narrative storytelling, anecdotal experiences) approaches to portray the effect of COVID-19 in their region. Subsequent to the webinar, the committee collectively identified five themes conveyed by the presenters through consensus. RESULTS: The themes included: (1) altered accessibility to palliative care, with socio-economic status impacting virtual health availability; (2) reduced opportunities to preserve dignity, as survival has been prioritized over preserving the humanity of patients and their loved ones; (3) complicated grief and bereavement arising from social distancing requirements; (4) greater awareness of the importance of sustaining health provider well-being; and (5) the development of valuable innovations across nations, institutions, disciplines, and communities. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the webinar facilitated valuable connection for global learning and identified opportunities for research and clinical interventions. In an ongoing crisis that has exacerbated isolation, we will need to continue to learn and lean on one another as a global community to navigate ongoing challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".